Category: zerohedge

Authored by David Stewart via RealClearDefense,

Ken Burns’ documentary on the American Revolution has generated much commentary, some supportive and some critical. Across social media, complaints abound that he paid too much, or too little, attention to the traditional Founding Fathers—Washington, Hamilton, Monroe, Jefferson. Critics pillory him for overemphasizing one specific type of history—military, political, economic, or social—while minimizing or ignoring the other types. In nearly every interview, Ken Burns repeatedly asserts that he sought to complicate the traditional narrative about the Revolution, to insert more nuance into the conversation, and these various criticisms from across the ideological spectrum might seem to suggest he has done so.

The major flaw in the documentary, however, is not that he presented the Founders in the wrong light nor that he complicated the traditional story. Rather, in his attempt to invoke a more nuanced narrative, Burns in fact obscured the most important elements of that narrative.

Some conservative commentators object, for example, to the documentary discussing Major-General Horatio Gates’ actions after the Battle of Camden. In August 1780, Gates’ 4.000-man American army suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Lieutenant-General Cornwallis’ 2.000 British in the South Carolina midlands. In the waning moments of the battle, Gates abandoned his army, riding almost 200 miles before stopping near Durham, North Carolina. Does this make Gates look bad? Yes; deservedly so. Is it the whole story, or even the most important element? Not at all.

Congress quickly replaced Gates, appointing Major-General Nathanael Greene to command the Southern Department. He inherited a remnant army of fewer than 2.000 soldiers—isolated, defeated, and out of supply. Over the next several months, Greene doubled the size of his army as he slowly withdrew northward, drawing Cornwallis after him. As they moved north, the Americans fought a series of skirmishes and battles, losing almost every encounter—a process of strategic retreats Greene famously summarized as “we get beat, rise, and fight again.” But in this series of defeats, the Americans drew Cornwallis far beyond his supply lines, leading him to abandon the Carolinas completely and to march on Yorktown.

Notably, Greene had far more men in his army by the Fall of 1781 than he had inherited a year earlier. This strongly suggests some important values drove those American soldiers, that they fought for more than money. They did not endure a year of hard marching, a string of tactical defeats, constant food shortages, chronic undersupply, and hundreds of casualties in the hope that this feeble army or a fragile government would someday reward them with land or cash. Those men believed in some higher cause, fought for principles. This is the story Burns’ documentary should emphasize—the context that frames Gates’ cowardice.

The soldiers at Valley Forge spoke a variety of languages—that’s interesting. But why did they suffer through that winter? Why did men dive repeatedly into a frozen Hudson River in January 1776? Why did soldiers volunteer to lead a forlorn hope at Stony Point? Why did three hundred Maryland riflemen choose to die rather than retreat during as the American army crumbled in the Battle of Brooklyn? We can all easily understand why men lie, embezzle, flee, or compromise their principles. It is heroism and self-sacrifice that demand explanation, and Burns’ documentary deserves criticism for failing to explain the extraordinary.

As a trained military historian, I’ve limited my comments to military history. Other scholars, far more qualified than I, have suggested similar reservations about the documentary’s discussions of Native Americans, Blacks, women, political thought, and economic history.

Ken Burns did not make General Gates look bad—Gates did that himself. My objection is that Burns, rather than nuancing or complicating the story of the Revolution, simply marginalized one set of much-discussed actors and substituted a new set, and thereby missed the real story.

David Stewart is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and a founding faculty member of the college’s Center for Military History and Grand Strategy.

More major Pentagon reshuffling is coming down the line, driven by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, but this time it’s being reported this will involve far more than just staffing and personnel changes – it will impact the entire US global command and headquarters structure.

Washington Post reports this week that the Pentagon is drafting a sweeping overhaul of American military command structures that would downgrade several major headquarters and reshape the balance of influence among senior generals.

The plan is reportedly being driven in large part by Hegseth’s pledge to “break the status quo” and reduce the number of four-star generals across the armed forces, sources quoted in WaPo say. He’s also long been talking about purging the ‘woke agenda’ from within military ranks.

The restructuring would diminish the standing of US Central Command, US European Command, and US Africa Command by bringing these theatres under a newly created entity called US International Command.

Also of note will be the creation of an “Americom,” according to the report. Currently it is US Southern Command and US Northern Command which are responsible for military operations across the Western Hemisphere, but now these will be placed under the US Americas Command.

“To ensure that America remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come, our country needs a coherent, focused strategy for how we interact with the world … The US must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity,” the strategy says, based on the report. 

According to another interesting note in the WaPo report:

“Pentagon officials also discussed creating a US Arctic Command that would report to Americom, but that idea appears to have been abandoned.”

This comes on the heels of the recently published new National Security Strategy issued by the White House.

Within the 33-page national security document is the laying out of a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: “The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity — a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region,” the document states.

“The terms of our alliances, and the terms upon which we provide any kind of aid, must be contingent on winding down adversarial outside influence — from control of military installations, ports, and key infrastructure to the purchase of strategic assets broadly defined,” it adds.

One thing the potential revamping of conventional global command sectors does is to provide a more centralized structure under Pentagon top leadership, and it seems this is what Hegseth is aiming for.

Authored by Steve Cortes via RealClearPolitics,

Catholics have been some of Trump’s most important voters. But right now, 55% of Catholics give Trump a D or F grade on handling inflation. Affordability is the central issue for most Americans, especially swing voters. Patriotic middle-class Catholic families feel the squeeze, so this new populist coalition is being tested.

Back in 2016 Trump won the Catholic vote by 8 points, but in 2020 he split the Catholic vote nationally with Biden. Last November, Trump surged to a 12-point win among the faithful in 2024. That massive shift within the largest denomination in America drove the popular vote victory.

Now, this determinative group of voters watches closely, increasingly disenchanted with the state of the economy. So, we commissioned a survey of 1,483 registered voters in Wisconsin, the consummate swing state and one of the most Catholic states in America.

Overall, the Wisconsin economic outlook is grim. When asked to give a letter grade on Trump and the economy, here is the Badger State breakdown:

A – 10%

B – 18%

C – 17%

D – 19%

F – 33%

On inflation specifically, Midwest women deliver some harsh marks, with only 6% giving an A vs. 45% an F grade. Those grades are notable because women are disproportionately the CFOs and shoppers in households.  

Trump’s job approval in Wisconsin is -11% net: 41% approve vs. 52% disapprove. Trump remains very popular among Republicans, with 82% approval, but sinks to only 28% approval among independents. For Wisconsin Catholics, Trump remains more popular at only -4% net, with 45% job approval vs. 49% disapproval.

So … what can be done?

There are fixes, both in policy and in framing/messaging, beginning with blunt honesty with the American people, from Wisconsin Catholics to California agnostics. Recognize and acknowledge the very real angst out there.

The pain of cumulative inflation for five years takes a material toll on both the psyche and the bank accounts of hard-working Americans. The pain is especially acute for the masses of modest earners who have not enjoyed the benefits of asset inflation via stocks and real estate. Culturally, Catholics embrace a very middle-class mindset, even those who have achieved material financial success. They still identify with the mores and habits of their Irish, Mexican, and Italian grandparents.

So, empathy is crucial. Many on the right routinely – and understandably – mock Bill Clinton for his insincere “I feel your pain” tagline, but guess what? It is effective in politics. People need to believe that their leaders care.

So, here are the three points:

1. Level with people and show authentic concern. Communicate clearly that the present angst is real and justified, after years of economic hardship for regular citizens.
2. Detail the current positive trajectory of some key metrics, backed by data and evidence. President Trump and other Republicans can rightly claim serious early progress, using real world numbers.

–Real Wages jump higher, meaning pay adjusted for inflation.

–Residential rents finally trend lower.

–National gasoline prices dipped below $3/gallon for the first time in four years.

3. Accelerate these wins! How? Continue to negotiate for the best possible trade deals for America. Continue to attract massive flows of foreign capital into America. And keep pushing to get illegal aliens out of America, raising wages for citizens and easing the pressure on the scarce supply of housing.

Taken together, these strategies will work for all Americans, including the crucial Catholic population. Catholics are not locked-in partisans. They are practical and patriotic. Appeal to their common sense and persuade them of the efficacy of the plan, from the businessman leader who created the amazing first Trump Boom during the first term into 2019.

The faithful rallied big to Trump in 2024. They now have valid concerns. Repay their loyalty with honest, clear messaging … confirmed by tangible kitchen-table results. Then, Trump and his allies can once again earn robust Catholic support for the 2026 midterms, and beyond.

Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group, and senior political advisor to Catholic Vote. He is a former senior advisor to President Trump and JD Vance, and a former commentator for Fox News and CNN.

Trump chief of staff Susie Wiles said the following as part of the controversial Vanity Fair interview in reference to Venezuela policy: “If he were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then (we’d need) Congress.”

But only last month when President Trump was asked about this issue, he said, “We don’t have to get their approval. But I think letting them know is good.”

All of this could come to a head if enough Congressional leaders, especially on the Republican side, decide to grow a spine and stand up to the White House’s foreign policy adventurism down south – which polls show is not supported by most Americans.

The House is expected to vote Thursday on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution. It aims to halt any potential attack on Venezuela after Trump has threatened that the US military hitting land targets would happen ‘soon’.

Introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the bipartisan bill has 31 co-sponsors, including three Republicans: Reps. Thomas Massie (KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), and Don Bacon (NE).

Massie has of course been at the forefront of Trump criticisms, and he’s again helping lead the charge on Venezuela pushback, amid the huge American presence in the southern Caribbean.

“The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States,” Massie said in a statement upon the bill being introduced. ‘

“Congress has the sole power to declare war against Venezuela. Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.” This viewpoint is precisely what Wiles has voiced in her comments to Vanity Fair.

According to a brief summary of the Trump admin’s rationale: 

A central legal question is whether the administration can treat anti-cartel maritime strikes as a form of armed conflict falling within the President’s independent Article II power or within some existing statutory authorization.

CRS reports the Trump administration has asserted drug trafficking and terrorism “involving or associated with Maduro” threaten U.S. national security, and that it reportedly told Congress U.S. forces are in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels – an assertion that other experts and government lawyers reportedly questioned. This framing signals the administration’s likely legal posture without requiring anyone outside government to guess at classified briefings.

Also, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) is simultaneously seeking to reign in the drone strikes on alleged drug boats with his own war powers legislation. No Republicans have signed on to his initiative.

Recently, the President announced land strikes against Venezuela. No U.S. President is authorized to commit acts of war in a sovereign country without authorization from Congress. I cosponsored this War Powers Resolution to force Congress to vote “for or against” this action. pic.twitter.com/GfIaeQUiny

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 13, 2025

He said: “the Trump Administration has not provided a credible rationale for its 21 unauthorized military strikes on vessels in the Western Hemisphere, which have resulted in the extrajudicial killings of dozens of individuals.”

Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClearPolitics,

Legally armed civilians, we’re told, pose a major danger. They shoot innocent bystanders, justifiably kill others whenever they personally believe “force is reasonably necessary,” and rely on racist self-defense laws.

At least these concerns are the case in several recent news articles in the Wall Street Journal. On Monday, with the story on the front page of the Journal, reporter Mark Maremont continued his attacks on people legally carrying concealed handguns. His article presents four stories from 2021 to the present where citizens who used a gun in self-defense accidentally shot a bystander.

But with more than 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year, almost 21 million permit holders, and 29 constitutional-carry states where a permit to carry isn’t necessary, four cases over four years offers little perspective.

Even worse, only two of the four cases even involve people who were legally carrying concealed handguns in public (one case each from Massachusetts and Michigan). In the Ohio case, the convenience store employee had the gun at her workplace, so concealed-carry laws didn’t apply. In the California case, the state required a permit, but there is no evidence that the individual had a permit.

The Wall Street Journal article warns about the dangers of constitutional carry (what it calls “permitless carry”) and quotes gun-control advocates claiming that “When untrained or panicked shooters miss their target, it’s children, neighbors and bystanders who pay the price.” Yet, not a single one of the article’s examples involved constitutional carry.

To examine the issue more directly, the Crime Prevention Research Center, which I head, used ChatGPT and Grok to search news reports and compile a list of cases from the past decade in which concealed-carry permit holders accidentally shot an innocent bystander. Since 2016, we have also collected cases where people legally carrying guns in public have used them to stop crimes and we have reviewed those cases. All together there were four cases from 2016 through nearly all of 2025. One listed incident involved a security guard, who arguably should not be counted.

From 2016 to 2025, including the security-guard case, permit holders accidentally shot five bystanders – two killed and three wounded. Excluding the security guard, permit holders shot three bystanders – two killed and one wounded.

But the issue isn’t one of perfection. The question is: What is the alternative?

We then did the same review of police incidents from 2016 to 2025 and found 20 cases in which officers accidentally shot a total of 28 bystanders: six killed and 22 wounded. In one case, an officer wounded six people; in another, three officers wounded three people. Some news stories do not make clear whether the criminal or the police shot the bystander, so these numbers may understate the total number of bystanders shot by police.

Overall, police accidentally wounded 5.6 times as many bystanders as civilians (including the security-guard case), killed three times as many, and wounded seven times as many. Excluding the security guard, police shot seven times more bystanders, killed three times more, and wounded 22 times more. Without the security guard case, bystanders were seven times more likely to be accidentally shot by police than by civilians.

Other research using the FBI’s active-shooter definition confirms this pattern. We looked at cases from 2014 to 2024 – cases where individuals actively attempt to kill people in a public area and excluding shootings tied to other crimes – showing that armed civilians consistently act safely and effectively. They stopped over half of the attacks in places where they could legally carry, more frequently than police.

Police are extremely important in stopping crime, and research shows they are the single most important factor. But their uniforms make them operate at a real tactical disadvantage in stopping these shootings. Attackers can wait for officers to leave, strike elsewhere, or shoot them first. As a result, police were killed at eleven times the rate of intervening civilians and accidentally killed civilians or fellow officers five times – or five times more than civilians accidentally shot bystanders.

Attackers don’t just avoid police officers – they risk encountering far fewer of them than permit holders. In 2020, the U.S. had roughly 671,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers, and typically fewer than 240,000 were on duty at any given time, amounting to less than 0.1% of the population. By contrast, almost 21 million adults held concealed-carry permits, representing about 7.8% of the adult population.

Permit holders are also extremely law-abiding, losing their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates of thousandths or tens of thousandths of 1 percentage point. Police rarely commit crimes, but concealed handgun permit holders are even more law-abiding, facing a conviction rate for firearms offenses that is just 1/12th the rate of police convictions.

Unfortunately, that isn’t the only recent problem with the Wall Street Journal news articles. Another long article co-authored by Maremont at the end of October warns that justifiable homicides increased after Stand Your Ground laws made it easier for people to defend themselves. What the article ignores is that while justifiable self defense killings rose, in the first five years after Stand Your Ground laws are adopted, murder rates fell on average by more than 8%.

The article misstates the legal principal that governs what is justifiable self-defense. It claims that anyone can shoot another person by simply claiming they thought force was “reasonably necessary.” But that isn’t the standard. The law requires that a reasonable third party believe the defendant faced a serious risk of injury or death from the attack.

But the fact that there were fewer murders and more self-defense uses is exactly what the proponents of Stand Your Ground would predict. On top of that, yet another Journal piece attacked these laws as racist because “Nationwide, Black men and boys account for almost two-thirds of the victims in civilian justifiable homicides, according to the Journal analysis of FBI data from 2019 to 2024.” Yet, the Journal ignores past research showing that blacks, who are the most likely victims of violent crime, are also by far the most likely to use Stand Your Ground laws as a legal defense. It is also important to note that about 90% of murders of blacks are committed by other blacks.

The Wall Street Journal alarms readers by focusing on anecdotes, yet it ignores extensive evidence showing that armed civilians pose little risk – and far less risk to bystanders than police. Permit holders regularly stop crimes and active shooters with minimal collateral harm. Stand Your Ground laws are not racist nor do they cause excessive violence; instead, they have reduced murder rates and empowered vulnerable communities – especially black victims – to defend themselves legally. By prioritizing sensational stories over solid data, such news stories ultimately undermine public safety.

John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor to RealClearInvestigations, focusing on voting and gun rights. His articles have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune. Lott is an economist who has held research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice.

Authored by Cara Michelle Miller via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Not all antidepressants are created equal when it comes to your waistline, heart, and blood pressure, according to a sweeping study published in The Lancet that analyzed data from more than 58,000 people to create the first comprehensive ranking of drug side effects.

The analysis compared 30 antidepressants, some of which are not available in the United States, from older tricyclics such as amitriptyline to newer selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as sertraline (Zoloft).

Experts said that the side effects listed are not new or surprising.

The study affirmed well-known observations about antidepressant side effects, Dr. Joseph Goldberg, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who was not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times in an email.

What’s new, Goldberg noted, is the comprehensive review of the literature that reassures us, and helpfully quantifies for us, that many of these common side effects tend to have only modest impacts.

The findings reinforce the need for personalized choices and regular monitoring, especially for long-term users, because side effects can build over time.

Weight Gain, Blood Pressure, and Cholesterol Changes

People on antidepressants experienced a 9-pound difference in weight change across drugs.

The most extreme weight changes occurred in those taking agomelatine (Valdoxan) and maprotiline (Ludiomil), with the former associated with a weight loss of about five pounds and the latter with a weight gain of about four pounds.

Both of these drugs, however, are not approved for use in the United States.

Differences in heart rates exceeded 20 beats per minute, from fluvoxamine (Luvox), which slowed the heart by calming the nervous system, to nortriptyline (Pamelor), a stimulant that increased heart rates.

Blood pressure shifts were also notable, with the upper (systolic) number differing by about 11 points between certain tricyclics such as nortriptyline and doxepin (Silenor). These drugs directly act on the body’s nervous system and blood vessel receptors, which can raise or lower blood pressure.

“These are not alarming effects,” Dr. Daniel Carlat, a psychiatrist and chair of the psychiatry department at MelroseWakefield Healthcare, part of the Tufts Medicine network, who was not involved in the study, said in an email to The Epoch Times, “but the paper reinforces the value of simple monitoring—blood pressure, weight, and labs—especially for patients with heart or metabolic risk.”

“Some of the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors—like duloxetine and venlafaxine—caused  small but measurable increases in blood pressure and cholesterol, which makes it worth checking those numbers periodically.”

For people with diabetes, hypertension, or heart problems, small increases in weight gain and heart measurements can affect blood-sugar levels or add strain to the heart and blood-vessel system.

Common Antidepressants and Potential Side Effects

The following is not a complete list of potential side effects, and the effects listed vary by person, with not everyone experiencing them.

Why Different Drugs Have Different Effects

About 20 million Americans take antidepressants for depression or anxiety. Beyond mood, these drugs can influence your metabolism, often in very different ways.

Antidepressants affect brain chemicals that lift mood—the same chemicals that regulate appetite, metabolism, blood vessels, and the heartbeat.

Depending on the specific medication, appetite may increase or decrease, blood vessels may relax or constrict, and the heart’s rate may shift slightly.

For example, agomelatine, which causes weight loss and regulates the sleep-wake cycle, may help reduce appetite, while maprotiline, which is linked with weight gain, increases appetite.

Outside of drug side effects, weight gain can also occur when an antidepressant lifts mood—people who were eating less due to depression may return to their usual appetite.

Side effects aren’t the same for everyone, which is why it’s important to consider a person’s overall health, symptoms, and sensitivities when choosing a treatment.

Risks vs. Benefits

“Side effects are not necessarily equal-opportunity offenders,” Goldberg said. “Every patient is unique, and almost all medications carry some side effects—even placebos.”

Some antidepressants that are more effective at treating difficult-to-treat depression carry a higher risk of weight gain, and it would be a disservice to patients if their doctor were to avoid prescribing them simply due to a higher risk of weight gain, Goldberg said.

The patient would be at risk of persistent depression, having functional impairment, and possibly even suicide if their depression went untreated.

“It all starts with a conversation about whether the depression is severe enough to merit medication versus therapy,” Carlat said. “If we do decide to try a medication, I start with those that offer the best balance of benefit and tolerability—typically an SSRI like sertraline or escitalopram. Bupropion is also high on my list because it rarely causes sexual side-effects or weight gain.”

In children and young adults, antidepressants can provoke or exacerbate suicidal thoughts, while older adults appear to be somewhat protected from this side effect, Goldberg said. Additionally, patients with anxiety may also be more prone to developing such side effects.

Some symptoms of depression may also overlap with side effects from medication, Goldberg said. Appetite changes, weight gain, and sexual issues can stem from either depression or medication use.

Clinicians, therefore, need to consider all factors and make personal decisions for each patient. Maintaining open communication between patients and doctors is essential.

Age, anxiety level, genetics, and the use of multiple medications also influence side effect risk. The study did not address why some people are more vulnerable to side effects than others, or how clinicians can identify higher-risk patients.

What to Know Before Starting an Antidepressant

According to Goldberg and Carlat, for patients considering antidepressants, shared decision-making with doctors is key. Common concerns, according to the study’s researchers, include:

• High Blood Pressure: Ask about medications known to raise blood pressure, such as amitriptyline or venlafaxine.
• Weight Gain: Options such as agomelatine, sertraline, or venlafaxine may lead to smaller average weight changes.
• Cholesterol: Some SSRIs, such as citalopram and escitalopram, appeared more neutral on cholesterol compared with paroxetine or duloxetine.
• Usage Period: Ask questions like, “How long will I need this medication?” and, “Are there non-drug options—such as group therapy or exercise—that could work as well?”

Because most of the trials covered in the study lasted only eight weeks, the long-term physical effects of antidepressants remain uncertain, thus experts recommend routine checks of weight, blood pressure, heart rate, and cholesterol for anyone on long-term therapy.

“There are seldom absolutes,” Goldberg said. “A person with high risk for heart disease may be a poorer candidate for a drug that causes weight gain or raises blood sugar.”

Former President Joe Biden’s planned monument to his presidency is becoming a brutal reality check on his legacy. 

In September, the Biden camp announced plans to build his presidential library in Delaware – assembling a team of former aides, friends, and political allies to oversee the project, which is supposed to include a museum and archive.

A senior member of the Biden Foundation described the project to CBS News as a “vibrant and lasting space where history, learning, and civic leadership come together, inspiring future generations to lead with purpose, serve their communities, and strengthen our nation.” 

However, a recent New York Times report suggests Biden will likely have to scale back the project.

“Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has raised only a small fraction of the money needed to construct a presidential library,” the paper reported Saturday, “leaving uncertainty about when a library might be built and its viability as a stand-alone project, according to public filings and interviews with his donors.”

In filings with the Internal Revenue Service, Biden’s library foundation revealed that it had not received any new donations in 2024, the final year of his presidency. The foundation was instead seeded entirely with $4 million left over from his 2021 inauguration.

The library foundation declined to say what it had raised in 2025. It said that Mr. Biden was only now beginning to actively raise money. He is holding the first event for potential library donors on Monday in Washington’s Georgetown neighborhood.

Still, Mr. Biden’s foundation told the I.R.S. this year that it expected to bring in just $11.3 million, total, by the end of 2027. That would be far below the pace set by other recent presidents, and far less than the $200 million that Mr. Biden’s aides say they want to raise eventually.

 As a result, Biden insiders say there’s talk of folding the potential Biden library into existing Biden-related projects at the University of Delaware. According to four anonymous sources, this could let the library ride on the millions the university—Biden’s own alma mater—has already raised for a “Biden Hall” project.

It appears that no matter what happens with the project, donations will be hard to come by. The New York Times reports that even some of Joe Biden’s most reliable donors say nobody has reached out to them about contributing to his presidential library. Others in the Democratic donor class sound even less enthusiastic, and say they plan to pour their resources into battling President Trump. Others admit that bitterness over Biden’s time in office has closed their wallets entirely.

“The Biden staff, they ruined any type of good library for him,” explained John Morgan, a longtime Democratic donor. “He’ll be lucky to have a bookmobile.”

Morgan was previously one of Biden’s top bundlers.

Biden now plans to personally start raising money for his library, beginning with a Georgetown cocktail event billed as a casual meet-and-greet. But the Joe and Jill Biden Foundation doesn’t sound particularly confident in his ability to raise funds. According to IRS filings, the foundation expects to raise only about $11.3 million by the end of 2027. For comparison, George W. Bush raised $500 million before cutting the ribbon on his library. Obama’s center costs around $850 million. Trump’s team is projecting close to $900 million. 

What’s happening to Biden is simple. The Democratic Party needed a placeholder to stop Trump in 2020, but there was never any genuine enthusiasm for him. When doubts about his cognitive decline became impossible to spin, his party kicked him to the curb. Now, to the Democratic donor class, Biden’s brand equity is virtually nonexistent, and the people who once filled his campaign war chest have moved on.

Joe Biden wanted a monument. What he’s getting is a mausoleum nobody wants to build.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

In a system dominated by Keynesian economics the word “deflation” is considered taboo; like saying Donald Trump’s name out loud in a crowded Seattle yoga studio. The screeching reaction you will get is rarely worth the effort of arguing the point. Every element of modern financial policy is designed to prevent a deflationary event. Every central bank policy is designed to artificially drag the economy out of deflation using whatever fiat stimulus is necessary.

Of course, deflation is not always a bad thing. It’s the harsh tasting medicine sometimes needed to correct the many problems caused by bad investments, corporate fraud, consumer debt addiction, government interference in markets, etc. We saw this during the crash of 2008, but the Federal Reserve refused to let the treatment run its course.

The US, like many countries, has become disconnected from the concept of financial consequences. But when America’s massive system dodges accountability, the cost to future generations can be immense.

So now we’re stuck with 17 years of persistent monetary intervention and the inevitable stagflationary crisis it created. The fact that Keynesians like Paul Krugman, Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke downplayed or outright denied the existence of the inflationary threat shows, at the very least, that they know inflation is a bad thing for the general public (otherwise, why would they try to hide it?).

They denied reality so hard it made them look stupid when 2022 hit the US with a 9.1% CPI rate. The consequences of stimulus driven policies are now undeniable and the Keynesian “experts” have been proven useless, but this doesn’t mean anything is going to change for the better.

My ongoing question with the return of Donald Trump to the White House has been this: How are the banks going to pull the rug out from under this administration? Will it be a deflationary crisis, or an even bigger inflationary crisis?

As I noted last month in my article “Inflection Point: US Government Shutdown And Strange Economic Signals”, gold and silver prices seem to be on the verge of going parabolic (beyond the price explosion we’ve already seen this year), which indicates incoming inflationary pressures. Or, at the very least, a global expectation among investors and central banks of a crisis event which will precipitate further inflation.

I suspect this is partially due to the monolithic interest payments that the US government is required to make on existing debt ($250 billion every 3 months currently). Central banks and investors are snapping up gold and silver, perhaps with the expectation that US debt will become unstable, thus affecting dollar value or triggering a new round of QE.

Furthermore, despite Federal Reserve intervention in interest rates, consumer spending has not significantly slowed down and debt borrowing continues to climb to record highs. CPI growth has slowed dramatically from the Biden era, but prices have not dropped enough to give relief to average Americans. If the Fed’s goal in jacking up interest rates was to slow demand, they failed miserably.

As I’ve noted in the past, the central bank had to hike interest rates to over 20% in the early 1980s to finally end the decade long stagflation crisis – We didn’t come anywhere close to that post-pandemic. Meaning, the Fed put a band aid on an inflationary gunshot wound.

But is deflation just around the corner? There are some signs that this is happening. For example, job availability has dropped by 500,000 openings in the past year, and keep in mind around 30% of all advertised employment opportunities are actually “ghost jobs” that don’t actually exist.

There have been increases in job layoffs in 2025, but 27% of those are connected to DOGE cuts to government bureaucracy. White collar jobs have seen a increase in layoffs of around 19% for the year.

The US national debt increased by $2.2 trillion in 2025. Consumer credit debt is increasing by around $190 billion every quarter. Total household debt has hit $18.5 trillion. Eventually, the debt expansion is going to drag down consumption, but this doesn’t seem to be happening yet.

There hasn’t been a noticeable slowdown in retail spending, nor in credit borrowing. Prices remain significantly higher compared to before the pandemic despite softening of the CPI. The elements needed for deflation to pull prices down just don’t exist.

I continue to suspect that a deflationary event is coming, but I think this will only happen after another round of inflation hits the economy. If the Fed cuts rates to the point that CPI spikes sharply again (which won’t take long), then rising prices will ultimately hobble consumer spending. If they don’t, then the Fed will hike rates well beyond recent highs, just as they did in the 1980s.

It’s the Catch-22 trap that I have been talking about for years and it’s not going away. The choice is really up to the Fed – To increase interest rates far beyond what they did in the past three years, or stimulate. In other words, the roller coaster starts in 2026 as the central bank continues to cut. Watch for returning instability in the CPI in the summer and fall.

Trump’s tariffs, if they are still in effect, will likely be blamed despite the fact that tariffs have avoided the kind of cost crisis that many critics were predicting. How did this happen? Well, because the critics don’t take into account the massive mark-up from manufacturers overseas to retail prices on the shelf.

Prices on many goods are jacked up by 250% on average once they reach the US. Some apparel items see a markup of over 900% before they hit the shelf. The price of labor and materials in Asia is exceedingly low, and the charges on final products in America are exceedingly high. This is why most international corporations can eat the tariff taxes without much trouble to consumers.

Tariffs are estimated to have caused an increase in CPI of 0.7% since they began according to Harvard research data; a negligible amount compared to the disastrous predictions of many mainstream economists.

That said, inflation continues to loom and tariffs make for a useful scapegoat simply because most people don’t understand them. There has been no deflationary correction, not since 2008 and not since the pandemic stimulus. Which means high demand has not been quelled and savings are not increasing (the US personal savings rate declined to record lows in 2024-2025). Excess dollars are still increasing in circulation and FRED M2 continues to climb. The system never took its medicine.

This means that as the central bank returns to lower rates, borrowing will explode to even higher levels.  Inflation will resurface, likely by the third quarter of 2026 if the Fed continues to cut interest rates into next year.

The Trump Administration is taking measures that could help mitigate prices. Mass deportations will certainly reduce domestic demand for goods and housing, which means more supply and falling prices. But this won’t happen at the kind of pace we need unless Trump finds a way to at least double the current annual deportations. The effects will be cumulative and will take years to affect markets.

Overall, I don’t see a way to escape more inflation in the near term without dramatic changes to economic conditions, or a historic move by the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates to levels not seen since the stagflation crisis 50 years ago.

A few years ago a propaganda narrative was launched by Democrat leaders and the left-wing media asserting that conservative red states are the greatest source of criminal activity in the US.  The narrative was designed to misdirect the public, distracting from the ongoing problem of progressive soft-on-crime policies which help violent offenders stay out of prison while putting the population at risk.    

In reality, red states only have a crime problem because of blue cities.  Democrat controlled cities suffer the most criminal activity by far.  Data shows that 27 out of 30 of the most violent cities in the US are Democrat run. The leftist propaganda backfired, leading to wider discussions on blue city decay and liberal delusions that crime is a “product of society” rather than a product of inherent psychopathy. 

The situation is far worse than reports indicate. For many years evidence has been mounting that reveals a pattern of suppression when it comes to blue city crime stats.  One city that has been placed under a microscope is Washington DC – A new report from the House Oversight Committee alleges former D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith played a considerable role in the overall Democrat effort to hide true crime stats from the general public.

The report, based on evidence and testimony collected over the course of the past several months, alleges that Smith pressured officers to manipulate crime data. The committee released the report on Sunday, less than a week after Smith announced she was stepping down.  

DC crime stats have been under suspicion for many years, but suppression did not come to light until Donald Trump initiated a crackdown on DC crime, deploying the National Guard to the city leading to an immediate drop in reported violence.  DC police officials claimed that there was no crime problem, boasting of a 30-year-low in murders and assaults.  This claim is now under dispute after the House Oversight report.

The report’s key findings include:

1)  Chief Smith used a pressure campaign against staff which led to inaccurate crime data. Testimony from MPD commanders revealed that Chief Smith prioritized lowering publicly reported crime numbers over reducing actual crime, placing intense pressure on district commanders to produce low crime statistics by any means necessary.

2)  Commanders also testified that Chief Smith pushed for more frequent use of lesser, intermediate charges – which are not publicly reported – and required certain crimes to be reviewed by her office, actions that together amounted to manipulating crime data to present the illusion of lower crime in the District. 

3)  Chief Smith punished and removed officers for reporting accurate crime numbers and fostered a toxic culture. Commanders described a culture of fear and stated that Chief Smith propagated an ecosystem of retaliation and toxicity. Testimony reveals commanders were berated for reporting rising crime and faced retaliation.  

4)  D.C. crime statistics are still at risk of manipulation.  Crime classifications – which affect reported MPD crime data – have been and are still at risk of being artificially reduced to manipulate crime statistics at the expense of public safety, even after Chief Smith’s abrupt resignation. 

5)  MPD commanders also confirmed that President Trump’s federal law enforcement surge in D.C. has been effective in lowering crime.  

While Smith has not yet publicly responded to the report, she’s previously denied allegations of manipulating crime data, saying the investigation did not play a factor into her decision to step down at the end of the year.  Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser also released a statement Monday, writing in part that “the interim report betrays its bias from the outset, admitting that it was rushed to release.”

This argument doesn’t address the damning testimony from transcribed interviews with the commanders of all seven D.C. patrol districts and a former commander currently on suspended leave.  The Democrat position is, as usual, that everyone else is lying and only they are telling the truth.  When faced with questions about the testimonies, Mayor Bowser asserted that the Police Chief’s “management style” was none of Congress’ business.  

This is the kind of blatant corruption that is suffocating many US cities.  

According to current crime stats from the Metropolitan Police Department, since Trump’s federal law enforcement surge started in August, total violent crime is down 26%. Homicides are down 12% and carjackings 37%.  

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Microcars could be driving on a street near you.

The affordability issue has also extended to the car market. At a time when the average price of a brand-new automobile is almost $50,000, the White House is seeking to offer motorists other affordable options.

Japan may have inspired President Donald Trump’s latest decision to allow U.S. manufacturers to produce tiny automobiles—also known as kei cars.

Administration Actions

Trump, speaking at a White House event on Dec. 3, expressed admiration for tiny cars after seeing them in Japan, comparing these models to the classic Volkswagen Beetle.

“They’re very small; they’re really cute,” Trump told reporters. “And everyone seems to think they’re good, but you’re not allowed to build them.”

He confirmed that he authorized Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to “immediately approve the production” of these smaller vehicles, which are common throughout Malaysia and South Korea.

“So, you’ll be able to buy [them],” the president said.

In a Dec. 5 Truth Social post, Trump reiterated the charm of these miniature cars.

“Manufacturers have long wanted to do this, just like they are so successfully built in other countries. They can be propelled by gasoline, electric, or hybrid,” the president wrote.

“These cars of the very near future are inexpensive, safe, fuel efficient and, quite simply, amazing!!! Start building them now!”

In a Dec. 4 interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Duffy stated that if there is market support for low-cost microcars, he wants to afford U.S. manufacturers the opportunity to satisfy consumer demand.

While they might not be functional on freeways, the secretary noted that they could work in urban settings.

“If that’s where you drive, it could be a great solution for you,” he said. “And, by the way, much more affordable than other options that are on the market today.”

Terminating CAFE Standards

The president’s comments came as he moved to dismantle his predecessor’s fuel‑economy rules, formally scrapping the Biden administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

The original program required automakers to average 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031, but Trump’s rollback lowers the target to 34.5 miles per gallon over the next six years.

The White House estimates that the change will trim at least $1,000 from sticker prices and deliver about $109 billion in consumer savings over the next five years.

Driving a Kei Car

Emerging in the late 1940s and ‘50s, tiny automobiles—kei cars—were created to provide low-cost personal transportation during Japan’s postwar reconstruction. Their compact size suited the era’s infrastructure, when most roads were narrow, winding, and frequently unpaved.

The federal government does not explicitly ban Japanese-style microcars. However, regulatory exclusions effectively prevented automakers from producing these types of vehicles, forcing them to manufacture larger, heavier cars.

Since the 1970s, the United States has implemented modern federal crash-safety and highway-safety standards under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This includes airbags, crash-test performance, side-impact protection, and structural strength.

Kei cars—designed with small dimensions and engines—cannot comply with these standards without adding weight and size, ultimately undermining the very concept.

‘Game Changer’ for US Automakers

The president’s public support and policy actions regarding kei cars are a “game changer,” said Lauren Fix, a sector analyst and industry expert at Car Coach Reports.

“This is not an overnight process, but the tooling could be shipped to the U.S. and produced within a year,” Fix told The Epoch Times.

One automaker is already putting the pedal to the metal to see if Americans want smaller cars.

Chrysler parent Stellantis said on Dec. 8 that it will begin offering an all-electric small car called the Fiat Topolino—translated to “little mouse”—in the United States in 2026.

Fiat CEO Olivier François stopped short of providing more information, but he said in a statement that more details would be shared in 2026.

“The Fiat Topolino, our small, joyful, colorful car that is now everywhere in Europe, has made several appearances in the U.S. over the past year, including last month at the LA Auto Show, where it’s creating tremendous excitement among consumers,” François said in the statement.

“So much so that I’m happy to share that we’ll be bringing the Fiat Topolino to the U.S., with more details to come next year.”

Trump’s enthusiasm for tiny cars, meanwhile, could also lead to savings for families, according to Fix.

Affordability Versus Market Demand

In Japan, brand-new gasoline-powered kei cars range from $8,000 to $14,000—electric alternatives can run as high as $27,800.

Stellantis sells the Topolino in Europe for approximately $11,500.

By comparison, the average transaction price of a new automobile in the United States is almost $50,000, according to Cox Automotive’s Kelley Blue Book report, released on Dec. 9.

But availability and cost may not be enough to entice motorists to hop into a kei car anytime soon.

Two in five Americans say an SUV or crossover is their primary vehicle, according to YouGov survey data—and that preference is reflected clearly in the country’s best-selling models.

The U.S. auto market remains dominated by SUVs and pickup trucks—sedans account for a smaller share of domestic sales. In the first seven months of 2025, the top-selling cars have been the Ford F-Series, Chevrolet Silverado, Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Ram Trucks’ pickup.

If there is market demand, models such as Toyota’s Hilux pickup truck or the Fiat Topolino could be hitting U.S. streets in the coming years.

Travis Gillmore contributed to this report